Little Boxes

And the people in the houses
All go to the university,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
And there's doctors and there's lawyers
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

It's a modification of this Malvina Reynolds song, made famous by Pete Seeger.

Speaking of boxes, H. L. Mencken wrote in The American Mercury (April 1924) that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence...Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim...is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States.

The more things change, the more they stay the same? Sigh.

Team Mark Cuban

Interesting battle between two major bloggers and superstars. Barry Ritholtz compliments Mark Cuban but also points out that Mr. Cuban seems to be contradicting himself unless he has an edge. The original thread is here. I wanted to share my thoughts, and while I am usually on Mr. Ritholtz's side, in this case, he's missed the big picture.

Mr. Cuban has always maintained two overall themes: 1) the stock market has morphed into a casino, far from its original purpose, which was to help entrepreneurs expand their businesses; and 2) financial advisors and Wall Street have so many conflicts of interest, they are inherently dishonest and no longer consider retail investors’ interests. (Quite frankly, both of these themes are 100% correct.)

Mr. Ritholtz's comments seem to hold Mr. Cuban to a strange standard, i.e., If Cuban says the market is rigged and you should be in cash, bonds, or CDs, what exactly is his "edge" in giving this investment advice? The problem is that you don’t need an “edge” to be in cash. For most non-traders, the point of having a cash-centric portfolio is to avoid volatile investments. Mr. Cuban was just pointing out that the average retail investor is usually at a disadvantage in the stock market, meaning s/he should be in cash or another investment that is not subject to the whims of Wall Street bankers.

Thus, criticizing Mr. Cuban for his lack of an investment “edge” seems nonsensical, because he’s not giving investment advice–as Mr. Ritholtz himself admits. Mr. Cuban is just trying to guide people to a savings vehicle that does not require an edge. Now, if someone wanted to criticize Mr. Cuban in non-straw-man fashion, s/he could mention two things:

1) in the absence of 8% money market accounts, bonds and CDs, most of us rely on stock market gains to fund our retirements, because most of us don’t have billions of dollars in the bank; in other words, after a certain financial point, one does not need to subject himself to the whims of Wall Street (I still remember Ted Turner saying that he keeps all his money in Treasuries). However, since most people are not in Mr. Cuban’s financial position, his advice seems questionable in the absence of persistent deflation; and

2) being in cash has been a terrible move over the long run (30+ years) due to inflation, and therefore Mr. Cuban’s advice is not helpful to retail investors who lack billions of dollars for retirement. In short, Mr. Cuban’s 10 year time horizon is too short and conveniently selective, because under Bogle’s, Graham’s and Buffett’s theories, investors should be prepared to hold stocks for 30+ years to smooth out returns.

Perhaps Mr. Ritholtz is trying to start something with Mr. Cuban to get more readers. As an avid fan of both men, I have no problems with his strategy. I also continue to wonder if the average long-term investor is best served by Mr. Cuban's all-cash advice.

Update: Kedrosky interview (6/29/10) with Mark Cuban here:

So that’s when I kind of gave up my widows and orphans approach and started trading stocks and that was the early 90s and it worked out very, very, very well for me. I think I took that $3 million, which is about $2 million after tax, and turned it into about 10x, just having boom years. Which a lot of people did in technology in the 90s and that was just, you know, from probably 1990 to 1995.

Ah, the 90's. Good times.

Barry Ritholtz: Look Out Below?

According to today's post, hedge fund manager and author Barry Ritholtz says: 

We have been mostly cash since May 5th (as much as 100% then, 50% cash in June). We are now over 80% cash, and are looking for a move down towards 950 on the SPX. 

950 on the S&P 500 means a 20% drop from today's prices. Still, don't HPQ and some other tech names seem tempting at current (8/24/10) prices? Mr. Ritholtz seems to be betting that the Democrats--which control both the White House and Congress--will do nothing about a 20% stock market decline, even with elections arriving soon. 

More from Barry Ritholtz here. 

Disclosure: I own shares of HPQ.

Police Transparency

San Jose City Councilmember Pete Constant's office left me a message last week. I called back, and one of his staff wanted to confirm my contact information. I confirmed his office had my correct email address and contact information. Then, right before the end of the conversation, I was asked if my mom was the head of the household. I said yes--after all, what son doesn't think his mom rules the household? (And we all know if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy, right?)

I've been thinking more about Mr. Constant and his vote against police transparency. Basically, Mr. Constant was one of the deciding votes in a 6-5 vote overruling the Sunshine Task Force's recommendations on police records. When I asked him why he voted against police transparency, he indicated that he followed the lead of the police department and D.A.'s office, and they told him that residents' privacy interests could be negatively impacted. (At the time of the vote, Dolores Carr, who is married to a former SJPD officer, was the D.A.) It appears the police department and/or D.A.'s office may have been less than forthcoming with Mr. Constant, who seems to have accepted their opinions at face value. As I've written before, the Task Force's recommendation would not have negatively impacted privacy interests. In short, six Councilmembers--including Mayor Chuck Reed--voted against government transparency, even after some of them ran on a platform of government transparency.

In retrospect, I don't know why I was surprised to hear Mr. Constant follow the SJPD's lead. It's no secret that Mr. Constant--who will be term-limited out of his current Council position--has his sights set on the Santa Clara County Sheriff's position. To win that election, he needs the support of the police unions. Although Mr. Constant and his family are beneficiaries of multiple government pensions, Mr. Constant continues to be attracted to public service and/or government power. Why should we care?

America was founded on a system of checks and balances. A Councilmember is supposed to represent the people, not the police. If Mr. Constant didn't bother doing his due diligence when he was representing the people of San Jose, how will he act if he is in charge of the police? Although Mr. Constant deserves kudos for his generally high work ethic, I hope he has another chance to show us whether his loyalties reside with local police unions or San Jose residents. And I hope he--and Chuck Reed--get it right next time.

Excellent Wedding Ideas

I recently attended a wonderful wedding at Casa Real, located in Pleasanton, CA. So many couples seem to think they need a huge, expensive bash, but this couple managed to throw an excellent, fun wedding without breaking the bank. Here's how they did it:

1. Guests could get pictures taken in a photo booth at the reception. The booth would print out two sets of pictures--one for you, and the other for an album for the bride and groom. Guests could use props and accessories, such as an Afro wig or Elton-John-style sunglasses. On paper, I admit it sounds gauche, but everyone I saw had a great time using the booth. Plus, each guest had an instant souvenir.

2. The food was served family-style, which cut costs. Each table received plates or bowls with beef, salmon, mashed potatoes, and green peas. The food was simple but tasty.

3. Instead of having a big wedding cake, the bride and groom had a small wedding cake for themselves and cupcakes for guests. (See picture above.) In addition to cupcakes, guests could go to another table and get five different kinds of large gourmet cookies. Guests could also take cookies home in a small paper pouch.

4. There was an open bar, and most people ordered the suggested drink, which was a cranberry mojito.

5. The simplicity of the wedding allowed guests to focus on the speeches and the bride and groom. One of the best parts included a game between the bride and groom. They had to bring their chairs to the middle of the hall, sit with their backs against each other, and exchange one shoe. (Each person now has one shoe from the groom and one shoe from the bride, and neither person can see each other.)

The best man would then ask questions, and both the bride and groom would have to raise a shoe in response. For example, "Who controls the remote?" "Who hogs the bed?" "Who wears the pants in the relationship?" "Whose side of the room is messier?" And so on. (Some questions caused the groom to raise both shoes, much to the delight of the audience.)

6. Instead of having coffee delivered directly to the table, guests could go to a table and get their own coffee or tea. I found this arrangement more convenient than most weddings, where I would often want more coffee and would have to flag someone down to get a cup.

7. The DJ was great--he played mostly pop music, and I liked most of the songs he played. (It was a long time since I'd heard the Jackson Five's ABC.)

I had a great time, and I encourage more couples to ditch the fancy, cookie-cutter wedding bash and go with a simple, more creative experience.

FibreChannel v. Ethernet and Cloud Computing

I am asking for your feedback. Please use the "comments" section if you're able to assist me.

I've been studying how data is stored on the internet, more specifically storage area networking and Ethernet solutions for enterprises and service providers. There appears to be a debate about the future of FibreChannel technology. This debate centers on the limitations of FibreChannel ("FC") moving beyond certain speed limitations. Apparently, FC cannot keep up with the next generation Ethernet solutions, which can go up to 100 Gbps.

FC has an option called FCoE, or FibreChannel over Ethernet, which is designed to integrate future Ethernet applications and services. Questions:

1. What do you see as the future of FC in the context of the Ethernet threat?

2. Do you believe FCoE will convince IT professionals and CIOs to continue to rely on FibreChannel?

3. Please explain FC's ability to adapt to the increasing cloud computing universe. Can FC and FCoE adapt well to a universe where most apps and storage may migrate to a cloud computing platform?

4. Do you see FC able to continue growing over the next four years?

Update: some initial feedback indicates that FC is indeed viable, but FC drives may not be cost-effective for most businesses. Reasons given were 1) cheaper alternatives such as "load-balancing" and "distributed storage"; and 2) while FC scales as well as other storage technologies, it costs more and requires more specialized equipment for little benefit. Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

Weimar Republic and Nuclear Weapons

I love witty remarks. On CBS Marketwatch's website, someone named "Daft" posted the following comment about America's current economic malaise, and I had to share:

Doom? Whatever.

Look no further than the Weimar Republic. Everyone was fine in Germany. Sure, economic collapse, but life went on.

Then they decided to have that guy lead the country back to greatness.

The diff? We have cool nuclear weapons 'n stuff... who will be that guy for us?

Thankfully, most of us are able to find the humor in "Daft's" comment, which probably means we're doing okay--for now.